The death penalty is moraly wrong and should be ileagal.

Tell me why you think that you have the right to take another persons life if they take another or otherwise why do we get to take the life with chemicals and drugs that we inject to their body. studys show that it could take hours to kill that person or seconds. now in my book and in most that is not humane to do i think that it is wrong to kill any one exept for serial killers they should suffer. and then i can already tell that you are one of those people who say that it is wrong to keep someone in jail because it wastes the tax payers money but i would rather keep them there than kill them it will take more money to kill them than it would to keep them in jail and why do we put people who drugs in there who cares if they do that its their choice not ours!

First, I would like to apologize for my delay in replying, I meant to do so yesterday, but I forgot. Next, I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this intriguing debate.
The goal of a just society in punishing criminals must be two-fold. First, it must deter, and second, it must be proportionate. As an example, if we killed everyone who commits a crime, we'll have less crime, but that would be extremely inappropriate. So, in examining the death penalty we must determine if it is an appropriate deterrent. Obviously, I agree that it is, but I must prove why it is unjust.

First, some observations on this subject:
1. Even if the current method of death is unjust, the penalty itself is not.
2. Cost of the death penalty can be adjusted, just because it is expensive now does not mean that it has to be.

Now my argument.
1. The death penalty deters
The ultimate punishment is death. It is an event that most of us fear even more than imprisonment. It is the only sure way to prevent criminals from striking again. It has a finality that life imprisonment lacks. Criminals with life imprisonment can still cause harm. My mother, a psychologist has treated prison guards attacked by escaping prisoners. Unless zombies are a real threat, dead people cannot cause this harm. Also, life imprisonment is not always for life. The maximum incarceration period is 50 years, and that's the maximum. Prisoners have gotten out of a life sentence in 15 years. That means they can strike again, and strike again they have.

2. Death is appropriate for some crimes
There are some crimes so horrendous that death is warranted no matter the cost. Serial killer Nathaniel White triggered this outburst from the mother of one of his victims: "I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White's mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair." It is not fair. When individuals cause cause so much pain and show so little care for human life and dignity they deserve what they get. As there are cases so worthy of the ultimate punishment, we cannot call it immoral or make it illegal.

Now, onto my opponent's case. First he says that the method used to kill is inhumane, but as I observed a more humane method is always possible. Then he says that it would be appropriate for serial killers, upholding my argument, not his. Then he says death is more expensive than jail, but that is only because we make it so, not because it has to be so. His last statement about drugs is irrelevant, so I'll won't refute that.

I gladly await my opponent's rebuttal.

how is it that the death penalty is just. if we criticize the people that kill others and then we turn around and kill them that is just a little hypocritical is it not.

1.we do not have the right to kill another person.
2. why do we believe that it is just that we can take another soul when the law prohibits it and so does the bible.

when we try to take the job of god and decide when a person is to die we are just creating a new lease on life that we are in charge of deciding that it is their time to go!

if you are against the fact that roe v.s. wade was immoral,& wrong then this case could be interesting. if you are for roe v.s. wade this case is going to be interesting for you also.

in roe v.s. wade we argued the point of abortion and with the death penalty that is just another way of aborting a human life. sure it is not as early in life as a fetus but it is still a breathing organism. and when you take on the job of god you are deciding that another human should be killed inhumanly i might ad. now if you look at this argument and decide that it is not your style vote con because you can never change my beliefs in this simple yet harsh environment we call the law!

after stating these facts and opinions i argue that there is no other choice than to vote "PRO."

To start off I'll point out the fact that my opponent, in failing to refute my points, has tacitly agreed to them.

"how is it that the death penalty is just. if we criticize the people that kill others and then we turn around and kill them that is just a little hypocritical is it not." We kill to punish and protect, it isn't hypocritical to imprison kidnappers, and it isn't hypocritical to kill killers. If one shows themselves to be so evil and dangerous, death is sometimes the only appropriate punishment, as I said previously, it is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

"1.we do not have the right to kill another person.
2. why do we believe that it is just that we can take another soul when the law prohibits it and so does the bible."
For 1, we don't have the right to kill another person, but the government does, we have given it the power to protect us and to punish wrongdoers, that's what the death penalty does. For 2, obviously the law does not prohibit the death penalty as it is legal, and it never says anywhere in the Holy Bible (Correct me if I'm wrong) that we cannot give the death penalty. Granted it does say "thou shalt not kill," but most theologians believe it only applies to murder. There are examples of men killing other men in the Bible that are portrayed as just and right anyhow.

"in roe v.s. wade we argued the point of abortion and with the death penalty that is just another way of aborting a human life. sure it is not as early in life as a fetus but it is still a breathing organism. and when you take on the job of god you are deciding that another human should be killed inhumanly i might ad. now if you look at this argument and decide that it is not your style vote con because you can never change my beliefs in this simple yet harsh environment we call the law!" The only difference is, the fetus is innocent, with the death penalty, the criminal is not. If anything though, Roe v. Wade supports the death penalty, as it upheld death.

Now some of this argument is going to be on the fact that we have a comment on saying that we should kill them all and der it over with! you and the rest of your family and the world when we find out that the "killer" is innocent!!!

i should refute your points i know this but i do not agree that they are worth the time that it takes to type it to argue your points. you do not and never will understand my ethics...

i argue that there is no point that you can vote "con" it is the right choice to vote "PRO!!!!!!"

I would like to thank my opponent for again tacitly agreeing to my viewpoint. As he does not see my viewpoints as worth debating though, I am a little confused. As my opponent would rather state his opinion than debate you must vote CON.